"Demisexuality" and Misunderstanding Sexual Attraction

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ryn2 said:

@FictoCannibal., do you think what you’re experiencing is the same thing people who consider themselves demisexual experience (meaning the difference is more that you don’t feel comfortable wearing the label), or do you think their experience is different?

This is a difficult one to answer because I know there will be people who feel I am somehow invalidating their identity with my response, and that's not actually what I'm aiming for at all. My aim is to bring a better understanding of 'average sexuality' to the ace community for the benefit of any young questioning person who may feel like an outsider, alienated etc among their peers. It can be incredibly helpful to know you're not alone and that there are other people out there like you (regardless of whether you turn out to be ace or sexual). Like @Snao Cone said, it would have been really helpful to her if she could have learned a lot of this earlier. And even if one does turn out to not be ace, if your experience is still one that makes you more comfortable hanging out on AVEN (ie long time without desiring sex, not that fussed on sex, whatever) you can still hang out in this community as an ally - I think that's why so many people who thought they were ace then realised they were sexual are still hanging around. This place might be suuuuuper frustrating at times but for me anyway, it's still the most accepting and open forum I've been to online  

 

ANYWAY, to answer you. I believe that my experience is what many demisexual-identifying people say they experience (ALTHOUGH it didn't take me that long to develop that connection with the one/two-ish 'real' people I've desired sexual intimacy with). And I've met many demisexual-identifying people who are faaaaaaaaaar more sexual than I am (they might get a new partner every few months, or sometimes even multiple partners at once *sigh*)

It usually takes me years just to be able to find someone attractive to look at (ie Benedict Cumberbatch is the most recent example, same thing happened with Tom Hardy) and that ability to find them physically attractive only happened after I developed a strong respect for their versatility and talent, and saw many interviews with them so I got to learn more about their personalities and mannerisms etc. Before that, they just looked like any other man to me. Just a cardboard cutout with a face who could be anyone even though I'd been watching their movies/shows for many years at that point!! I knew others found them attractive but I just couldn't personally see it until those more emotional aspects became involved. So yeah, even when it comes to finding males physically attractive (without a desire to actually have sex with them), I do need a lot more than to just be able to look at them. But like I said before, that's not really anything to do with demisexuality if there's no desire to actually have sex attached with it.

 

The difference with my ex (who I developed actual sexual desire for) is that I met him in WORDS before ever seeing him. I was able to become drawn to his words, and emotionally attracted to him through those words.. which meant that when I saw him he was already beautiful to me. But it was through his words, and my connection to his personality, that made me go from 'fully asexual-seeming' to wanting kinky sex 24/7 with him.. lol.

 

The reason I don't identify as demisexual (or gray-asexual which would be closer in some ways going by how some people use that label) is because I know there are many sexual people who feel those things and have those experiences who DON'T use a label like demi or gray because they never saw themselves as 'different'. They may have grown up around more mature peers, had parents that were more open about variations in sexuality, began experimenting with different sex partners from a relatively young age so realized how different everyone can be.. whatever. But to them, they know that while they only desire sexual intimacy with certain people under very specific circumstances, maybe very rarely or whatever, they know that every sexual person has a set of requirements that need to be met before they can want to engage in sex with someone. For some those requirements are very lax, for others, they may be very, very specific and difficult to meet. But like @asshole was saying before, no one is born just innately wanting sex with everyone, lol. We all have requirements that need to be meet before we are innately able to experience a desire for sexual contact with this or that person. For some those requirements are harder to meet (for me, they're nearly impossible!!) but yeah.. That doesn't make me some kind of ace because the fact is, under the right circumstances, I am able to innately desire partnered sexual intimacy with another person. Even if that's so rare for me that it may literally never happen again in my life.

 

End of over long rant! hah

 

That turned out to be waaaaaaaaaay longer than I was intending so I've run out of time to make the other responses I was going to (some people have quoted me here and I need to get back to them) but I URGENTLY need to get on with some work so I can have some extra cash for Christmas, so I must be disciplined! I shall try to respond to the other comments people have directed me later when I get the chance!  (and thank God I could get back to my coloured text, haha, that makes life so much easier!)

[ryn2]

Thanks, ficto!  I was confused because it sounded like some posters were describing the same experience (one I would call demisexual based on the definition) but then drawing different conclusions as to where  (labelwise) it put them.

 

I wonder how much of how we view ourselves is based on how different we were from what was (widely touted as) typical in our families/friend groups/communities growing up.

[FlyingFree]

18 hours ago, Graceful said:

I'mm not constantly turned on by someone I’m sexually attracted to. I’m pretty sure that’s considered a medical condition. 

Of course. In reading as much of this thread as I'm able, I still keep coming to the same conclusion: there seems to be something the average sexual feels towards select others that does not lead to actively wanting sex but that is something the average demisexual does not feel.

 

Sexual attraction does not seem to equal wanting sex. It can mean that but the majority of the time it's felt, it's not acted on. Is that a correct statement?

 

So this huge debate about whether anyone wants sex with strangers is not at all the question at hand, as far as I can tell.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, FlyingFree said:

Of course. In reading as much of this thread as I'm able, I still keep coming to the same conclusion: there seems to be something the average sexual feels towards select others that does not lead to actively wanting sex but that is something the average demisexual does not feel.

I can't respond to your comments on the previous page just at the moment sorry (in a hurry as usual, lol) but after having read most of the comments that have come through so far in this thread I'm confused by what you mean. What is this thing that the average sexual person feels which a demisexual doesn't, in your opinion?

 

38 minutes ago, FlyingFree said:

Sexual attraction does not seem to equal wanting sex. It can mean that but the majority of the time it's felt, it's not acted on. Is that a correct statement?

At its core, sexual attraction is the type of attraction that makes you want to have sex with another person. It's an attraction that pulls you towards seeking libido release with someone else as opposed to being perfectly content just to masturbate alone to deal with libido, if that makes sense? 

 

That's why when we say 'homosexual means you're sexually attracted to people of the same gender as yourself' we mean 'you have a preference to seek partnered sex with people of the same gender as yourself'. It's not trying to define some obscure feeling or anything, it literally means 'desires sex with people of the same gender' (hetero desires sex with a different gender, bi with both, asexual with none).

 

38 minutes ago, FlyingFree said:

So this huge debate about whether anyone wants sex with strangers is not at all the question at hand, as far as I can tell.

We're trying to say that while some sexual people may be able to actively desire sex with strangers, many are ONLY able to desire with people they have formed an emotional connection to. Many of the people in the latter group would fit the definition of demisexual, or gray-sexual, but really they're just average people who never happened to feel different enough (due to a higher level of sexual maturity among their peers or whatever) to need to try to find a special label. They have always been aware that sexuality varies massively from person to person so that what they're experiencing isn't really anything out of the norm. It's not some magical feeling that can't properly be defined or anything, lol. It's literally 'do you innately desire sexual intimacy with other people for whatever reason or not?' If not, then one is most probably ace.

 

Hope that makes sense, I'm typing in a massive hurry Y_Y

 

4 hours ago, ryn2 said:

I wonder how much of how we view ourselves is based on how different we were from what was (widely touted as) typical in our families/friend groups/communities growing up.

I think that's really the core of the issue to be honest. That, and the way that sexually inexperienced teenagers are now trying to be public educators (on sites like Tumblr, YouTube, and AVEN too to some extent) as to what human sexuality is and how it all works. Young people come to them trying to find answers and start feeling incredibly alienated because they haven't wanted to have sex with every attractive person they've ever seen since the age of 11 or whatever. They're being given the impression by these 'educators' that most people have wanted to bang people indiscriminately from a very young age (or some other strange nonsense) and they think 'Gosh, I have never felt that way. What's wrong with me? I'm a 15 year old girl and don't feel ready to have sex, I'm not sure I even know what it feels like to want sex with someone. Now I'm scared that no one will ever be able to love me because I'm clearly broken....' etc etc.  Whereas if they'd just been given accurate info about how varied human sexuality really is, and how common it is for people (especially females) to not start desiring partnered sex until their late teens or even their 20s (and that sometimes that desire only comes with an emotional bond), they'd feel a lot less scared and alone. Seen all this on AVEN waaaay too many times, it's incredibly sad. Y_Y 

 

[ryn2]

32 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

That, and the way that sexually inexperienced teenagers are now trying to be public educators (on sites like Tumblr, YouTube, and AVEN too to some extent) as to what human sexuality is and how it all works.

This part doesn’t stand out to me at all as it’s the prevailing culture/attitude towards sexuality where I live - regardless of age - and always has been.

[Philip027]

Quote

They're being given the impression by these 'educators' that most people have wanted to bang people indiscriminately from a very young age (or some other strange nonsense) and they think 'Gosh, I have never felt that way. What's wrong with me? I'm a 15 year old girl and don't feel ready to have sex, I'm not sure I even know what it feels like to want sex with someone. Now I'm scared that no one will ever be able to love me because I'm clearly broken....' etc etc.  Whereas if they'd just been given accurate info about how varied human sexuality really is, and how common it is for people (especially females) to not start desiring partnered sex until their late teens or even their 20s (and that sometimes that desire only comes with an emotional bond), they'd feel a lot less scared and alone. Seen all this on AVEN waaaay too many times, it's incredibly sad. Y_Y 

Tbh, it's not just them giving off this impression.  Sex ed in actual schools does the same damn thing.

 

Most of the time they won't even bother explaining to the mostly-hormone-addled teenagers why they're into sex (and therefore don't bother explaining how it's okay if some of them aren't); they just assume it's automatic for everyone anyway and that they already know.  If anyone claims not to know, they typically will just be brushed off with a "you'll understand when you get older" line of some sort.

[anisotrophic]

2 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

how common it is for people (especially females) to not start desiring partnered sex until their late teens or even their 20s (and that sometimes that desire only comes with an emotional bond)

There's been a perception or reports (eg among sociologists) of a shift towards a social normalization of hookup culture in recent years (last ~15 years).

 

But it's unclear whether this is changing the age at intercourse -- it may change the nature of reported partners (increasingly "casual") rather than their quantity or timing.

 

From https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/strictly-casual/201404/is-casual-sex-the-rise-in-america

"somewhat more people these days (10 to 15 percent) report sex with a friend or casual date/pick-up, but they do not report more sexual partners or more frequent sex overall. This suggests there may be a modest shift toward casual sex, but it’s a tendency toward replacing some regular partners with more casual partners—not adding more partners"

 

And some data about age-at-first-sex from https://www.whijournal.com/article/S1049-38671400008-5/abstract

 

(This is only capturing data up to people that are ~25 today, and not more recently.)

 

Cohort = data for people born in that year

Median = 50% of people have done it by that age, and 50% haven't...

 

Women:

 

Men:

 

 

 

 

[FlyingFree]

My friends growing up would make comments about someone being hot. The straight girls had pictures of boy bands on their bedroom walls. They would flip out when the professional ice hockey team came to practice at our ice skating rink. They'd talk about an electric sizzle when their hand touched someone they had a crush on. They'd talk about a kiss being a magical, amazing thing.

 

They seemed to get attracted to other people in ways I never did. But most of them never expressed desire to have sex with those people.

 

That's why I am asking about "something else" that seems like a sexual attraction that is not wanting sex right now. When I read these threads I am seeing the sexuals talking about feeling a chemistry that is different than wanting sex, something that seems just unknown to we aces.

 

But maybe I don't feel those things because of my personality and upbringing rather than because of my asexuality?

[anisotrophic]

32 minutes ago, FlyingFree said:

feeling a chemistry that is different than wanting sex

I've mentioned that I didn't experience the occasional double-take until after I'd experienced sexual attraction. So maybe for me it's a sort of echo, much more faint. A deja vu or reminder of the very personal sexual attraction experienced previously with another, triggered by how this person looks and acts. In which case, it's not surprising that I wouldn't experience these until I'd had some significant experience of sexual attraction (and this only happened with someone I got to know pretty well).

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, FlyingFree said:

My friends growing up would make comments about someone being hot. The straight girls had pictures of boy bands on their bedroom walls. They would flip out when the professional ice hockey team came to practice at our ice skating rink. They'd talk about an electric sizzle when their hand touched someone they had a crush on. They'd talk about a kiss being a magical, amazing thing.

The thing is, many asexuals experience all this too. It seems very different from anything to do with being sexual or not because otherwise aces wouldn't experience it, if that makes sense? I was trying to explain this to Philip before but I just don't think my point was getting across  

 

I certainly experience these feelings once I'm emotionally attracted to someone (whether or not I want to have sex with them.. I literally just spent $60 last night on a pile of Benedict Cumberbatch magazines and posters, ahem, though it took me YEARS to get that way for him) and I also experienced these feelings/behaviours with my asexual partner when there was no desire to actually have sex on either of our part, it was just an aspect of my romantic attraction to him. It obviously wasn't a part of being sexual or not sexual though because both him and I experienced it while being in a fully asexual relationship (that was before I knew I could actually desire sexual intimacy under the right circumstances). I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but like I was trying to explain to Philip, the things you described here seem completely separate from ones sexual orientation (though obviously they may often coincide). There are hypersexuals who do NOT experience the things you described (they may seem cold and emotionally distant but still love having sex) and asexual people who experience that kind of thing ALL THE TIME (for both fictional characters and real people,and machines and other stuff too!!) so to me it seems clear that these behaviours you described are a personality trait as opposed to being indicative of ones sexual orientation. Some people behave this way and some don't! 

 

54 minutes ago, FlyingFree said:

When I read these threads I am seeing the sexuals talking about feeling a chemistry that is different than wanting sex, something that seems just unknown to we aces.

 

I think this is where the confusion is. You seem to assume these feelings/this behaviour is unknown to aces but I know many, many aces from AVEN who experience these same things you're describing. Feeling all giddy when they think of their crush, talking about how hot certain people are, getting all tingly when they kiss or hold hands with someone cute. These people describe themselves often as romantic and/or sensual aces. These feelings just don't lead to an actual desire to have sex for an ace, in the same way they often won't lead to a desire to have sex for a sexual either (one who requires some kind of bond to desire sex I mean). Hopefully I'm making sense, I'm typing in a real hurry on my phone while trying to do dishes and make my kids school lunches lol. I really don't think I got my point across to Philip but maybe I'm being clearer now?

 

54 minutes ago, FlyingFree said:

But maybe I don't feel those things because of my personality and upbringing rather than because of my asexuality?

My personal take is that it's definitely a personality trait as opposed to being indicative of whether one is sexual or ace or whatever. I know lots of aces here who literally drool and go gaga for a sexy man (or a sexy car, you know who you are!!) 😛 but I've also met sexual people who really couldn't care less about appearance and certainly don't get all giggly and foolish etc when they have a crush (though often these people don't actually seem to get crushes, lol).. so yeah I totally think this is a personality thing that some people just have or don't have, regardless of what their sexual orientation is.

 

I really hope that made some kind of sense, and thank God I didn't drop my phone in the dishwater lol

[FlyingFree]

Yes, both of you made sense, thanks. Are the things I mentioned connected to romantic feelings? As in an aromantic probably wouldn't feel them? Or just completely a range of normal some people do, some don't?

 

Sorry for making you repeat yourselves. I think I mentioned this is all new to me even though I'm not that young, so I'm still trying to understand what the terms mean and what is normal or not. I grew up pretty conservative so we didn't talk in depth about some stuff. Thanks for everyone's help!

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, FlyingFree said:

Yes, both of you made sense, thanks. Are the things I mentioned connected to romantic feelings? As in an aromantic probably wouldn't feel them? Or just completely a range of normal some people do, some don't?

 

Sorry for making you repeat yourselves. I think I mentioned this is all new to me even though I'm not that young, so I'm still trying to understand what the terms mean and what is normal or not. I grew up pretty conservative so we didn't talk in depth about some stuff. Thanks for everyone's help!

I have a friend (who I met on AVEN) who is very, very aromantic. She doesn't giggle over guys or act silly or get dreamy or anything, she doesn't go on about finding anyone hot or even cute (other than animals, she will go 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw so cute' about a little animal, just not a person hah) and she certainly doesn't want to kiss or smooch anyone BUT I still think an aromantic person (whether sexual or ace) could still find someone hot or attractive to look at, just without the giggly crushy stuff lol. Just as some romantic people (like Philip) don't experience 'finding people hot' at all, and some romantic people (like my step dad!) don't get all giggly and things as a result of those feelings. He won't ever even say 'I love you' or anything like that and certainly doesn't go on about crushes or anything, never has. He's about as romantic as a piece of cardboard while still actually desiring relationships and enjoying romantic companionship, haha! I honestly think those things you described (the giggles, crushes etc) are just something that many people experience, but there are also plenty who don't, and there would be whole lot somewhere in between there as well  

 

 

[Sally]

15 hours ago, ryn2 said:

The impression I get is that “I’d hit that” is (sure, sometimes posturing just to fit in with the crowd, but also) different than aesthetic attraction.  

Definitely.  When I first saw my partner (back when he was just gorgeous), I thought he was gorgeous.  Although I didn't know I was asexual back then, I did recognize that it was an aesthetic appreciation I was feeling, not sexual.   I would never have thought "Gee, I wnat to have sex with that man."  

[Telecaster68]

7 minutes ago, Sally said:

Definitely.  When I first saw my partner (back when he was just gorgeous), I thought he was gorgeous.  Although I didn't know I was asexual back then, I did recognize that it was an aesthetic appreciation I was feeling, not sexual.   I would never have thought "Gee, I wnat to have sex with that man."  

For me, it's more qualified than 'I want to have sex with that person'. It's 'from the limited data I have available purely from a fleeting glance, she looks like the kind of person I'd like to have sex with if about a million other conditions are right', combined with maybe some pervy imagination about what it might be like and possibly a very cosmetic sexual appreciation of looks. It's like window-shopping.

 

Actually definitely desiring to have sex with her is several substantial stages off.

[Sally]

39 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

 It's like window-shopping.

 

that's an excellent analogy.  

[Ceebs]

My brain never goes to sex, personally. There can be an attraction that results in that butterflies-in-the-stomach feeling and it's clearly something more than just aesthetics, but there's no thought of doing anything sexual or what the person's body is like or... I dunno, whatever else some people may think about. But then I'm not someone who has very visual fantasies even about a partner, it's all kind of... just a feeling. 

[anisotrophic]

I wonder how taking T will/would affect me. (Aside: that this, the commonly reported libido effect, is the effect my partner worries about strikes me as very ace... 😆) I think it might, I might experience more spontaneous sexual thoughts, more thoughts about "strangers". But this can't happen for several months, so it'll be a while before I can issue a report...

 

If it did, though, I think it would only seem to confirm that these experiences are details on "how" an orientation manifests and not an orientation in itself.

 

Bogaert has noted that T seems unrelated to orientation, it's affecting libido or something like that -- and this would seem to distinguish asexuality as an orientation, not "low libido" -- he noted (a) (male?) aces don't generally have abnormal T levels (e.g. my partner checked, he's exactly median), (b) there are funny/sad experiments in past decades to give gay men T to "cure" them... only causing them to want more sex... but with men, of course.

[ryn2]

Agreed, T should affect only libido and not orientation.  I suppose it could seem to affect orientation for people who are “effectively ace” due to low drive or “effectively gay/straight” rather than bi due to such low drive that they practically never experience it for their less preferred gender, but that would be unusual (and, like you said, indicative of a misinterpreted orientation).

[ryn2]

6 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

The thing is, many asexuals experience all this too. It seems very different from anything to do with being sexual or not because otherwise aces wouldn't experience it, if that makes sense?

Some of this - with real people, not fictional characters or mecha - goes back to the definition debate over what it means to be asexual, no?  As long as some people define asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction and others define it as a lack of sexual desire, there will be people self-labeling as ace when others would label them sexual.

 

Until that’s definitively settled I don’t think we can safely use “aces do it, so it can’t be something sexual” to classify feelings/sensations/etc.  It could be that, but it could also be that some sexuals are misidentifying as ace.

 

I’m not referring to anyone in particular, directly or by inference.  I’m just making a general statement.

[Lucinda]

I saw a documentary about 10 years ago that had probably been filmed 10 years previously.  It followed 3 couples.  In the first case, the husband (mtf) said she suddenly became attracted to men and claimed never to have experienced that before starting estrogen.  (Other posters said she probably didn't want to admit it previously).  In the second, the person was gay before and gay after starting transition meaning the sex of the partners changed as in the previous case.  And in the last case, it seemed like the couple was going to stay together -- I wish there had been a followup doc -- but I asked if people thought the orientation of the wife had changed -or- were they simply attracted to each other regardless of the physical changes the husband underwent?

 

Lucinda

[Lucinda]

8 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

Some of this - with real people, not fictional characters or mecha - goes back to the definition debate over what it means to be asexual, no?  As long as some people define asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction and others define it as a lack of sexual desire, there will be people self-labeling as ace when others would label them sexual.

 

Until that’s definitively settled I don’t think we can safely use “aces do it, so it can’t be something sexual” to classify feelings/sensations/etc.  It could be that, but it could also be that some sexuals are misidentifying as ace.

 

 

Yep, it may be better to drop the labels and just be able to explain yourself thoroughly in plain English, when necessary.

 

Lucinda

[anisotrophic]

There is a common phenomenon of orientation change concurrent with transition, it seems complex and not well understood. Is the orientation manifested modulated by physical dysphoria, is it shifting as an affirmation of gender identity, is gender is being experienced as entangled with a gendered sexual role, did someone suppress "true" attraction until after transition...

 

It's fair that this is a confusing counterpoint to asserting "T changes behavior not orientation", but IMHO I don't think the changes are caused by the hormones themselves but by shifts in identity and associated "roles".

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

Some of this - with real people, not fictional characters or mecha - goes back to the definition debate over what it means to be asexual, no?  As long as some people define asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction and others define it as a lack of sexual desire, there will be people self-labeling as ace when others would label them sexual.

 

Until that’s definitively settled I don’t think we can safely use “aces do it, so it can’t be something sexual” to classify feelings/sensations/etc.  It could be that, but it could also be that some sexuals are misidentifying as ace.

 

I’m not referring to anyone in particular, directly or by inference.  I’m just making a general statement.

 But you're interpreting sexual attraction (as a defining factor for  sexual orientation) incorrectly here. If sexual attraction was literally just that giggly crushy feeling then a whole lot of fully sexual (even hypersexual) people would be asexual because they don't get all giggly and silly when they have a crush or whatever - that's ridiculous. Same goes for finding people 'hot' or not, you can't base sexual orientation around someone's ability to apply a word like 'hot' to certain other people because there will always be people (even hypersexuals) who have literally no aesthetic preferences. These people would suddenly be asexual if using a term like 'hot' to refer to specific people is what defines ones sexual orientation. And someone like @Snao Cone would be 100% sexual (not asexual at all) because she's able to find people attractive.. she just doesn't want to have sex with them. The majority of asexuals that I've met here are like her, but if we were using this 'mysterious feeling' people keep talking about as the defining factor for sexual orientation then actually all those aces are 100% sexual and someone like my hypersexual ex partner is actually asexual because he'll literally fuck any person with a vagina and doesn't care about appearance in the least. His moto is: 'just bend her over if you can't look at her, they're all the same from behind'. But he'd be asexual apparently and Snow Cone is sexual along with other aces like her.

 

This is why it's so annoying when aces start trying to twist the definition of what makes someone sexual into this weird indefinable feeling that they (the aces) don't really understand and the sexuals keep saying is irrelevant: it just doesn't work.

 

Someone isn't homosexual because they have some magical feeling that can't really be described towards some people but not others, they're homosexual because they desire sexual contact with members of the same gender as themselves. That's what sexual attraction means when trying to define a sexual orientation: it's who you want to have sex with.

 

What I'm getting at is the only reason it's not definitively settled by now is because asexuals literally refuse to listen to what sexual people say when they try to explain what, at the core of things, makes them sexual. The asexuals go 'oh but no, there must be some magical feeling, it can't be that simple. It'll never be settled because I refuse to accept it's as simple as you're trying to explain it to me' etc.. it's very frustrating. It can't be settled unless asexuals stop arguing with sexuals about what it feels like to be sexual, but it seems to be an epidemic in the ace community where aces just can't help it. They must know better than sexuals about this thing that they (they aces) don't even experience, right?

 

And remember, AVEN itself (in the General FAQ) defines sexual attraction as the desire for partnered sexual contact with someone else. So in that case it's not an argument at all about which definition is accurate because they both mean the exact same thing! (Which yes, at the core of things that's what's true. Sexual attraction is the type of attraction that draws you to want to connect sexually with someone else.)

 

That rant wasn't specifically at you ryn, but more at the general attitude in that comment of yours I quoted. I've seen it here waaaay too many times over the years and while that prevails, we certainly won't get anywhere.

 

 

 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

7 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said:

or a sexy car, you know who you are!!

Brum brum.

Spoiler

^ Sexy mofo, still don't wanna bang.

[Snao Cone]

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Until that’s definitively settled I don’t think we can safely use “aces do it, so it can’t be something sexual” to classify feelings/sensations/etc.  It could be that, but it could also be that some sexuals are misidentifying as ace.

Classifying feelings like that is a bad idea, yeah. Breaking sexuality down into small parts to find the real difference between sexual and asexual will be a fruitless pursuit. (Notice how discussions like this show up repeatedly and go on for hundreds of posts? )

[ryn2]

I personally find using some flavor of “intrinsically wanting partnered sex” as the dividing line easiest, but it’s easy to tell reading this and many other threads that not everyone agrees.

 

Some of the confusion is over how people describe things.  Anyone who is romantic can have crushes (and people who are aromantic can still have non-crush obsessions).  For sexual people, “crush feelings” may include sexual attraction.  Many people regardless of orientation may notice appealing people while out and about.  For sexual people, that act of noticing may include sexual attraction.  Some people don’t really find others appealing until they have a chance to get to know them better.  For sexual people, that appeal may include sexual attraction.

 

It’s hard to make clear because it’s hard to tease apart.  Someone who is drawn to how people smell, e.g., probably isn’t going to report that separately from the other ways they find them attractive, because to that person it’s not a separate thing... but the smell-liker and a looks-liker can each say someone is hot and yet not quite mean the same thing.

 

tl; dr someone who feels both aesthetic and sexual attraction can typically distinguish between the two, but explaining the exact difference to someone who doesn’t feel both is going to be a challenge because we (the universal we) often use the same vague terms to describe both.

[Telecaster68]

Is there anyone who doesn't, ever, under any circumstances, feel aesthetic attraction, to anything?

 

I can't think of how that would work. You'd have to feel entirely impartial about looking at Nicole Kidman vs a rotting disembowelled hippopotamus corpse, for instance.

 

That's why some of us sexuals insist that we can tell the difference between the two things better than asexuals. We experience both, so it can't possibly be other than that.

[ryn2]

12 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Is there anyone who doesn't, ever, under any circumstances, feel aesthetic attraction, to anything?

 

I can't think of how that would work. You'd have to feel entirely impartial about looking at Nicole Kidman vs a rotting disembowelled hippopotamus corpse, for instance.

Isn’t there a difference between finding something aesthetically attractive and finding one of two things less unappealing than the other?

 

E.g., I don’t find dry rolled oats aesthetically appealing but if I had to pick looking at them over looking at a rotting hippopotamus corpse I would easily do so every time.

 

Likewise, I don’t find Nicole Kidman aesthetically appealing but she would win over the dead hippo too.  She’d be pretty neutral to the rolled oats, though.

 

In short, being able to distinguish between “okay” and “gross” doesn’t necessarily imply something better than okay exists for someone.

[Telecaster68]

It's still an aesthetic judgement, even if it's about negatives, and that means you're experiencing attraction sufficiently to make a judgement. 

[LeChat]

33 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Is there anyone who doesn't, ever, under any circumstances, feel aesthetic attraction, to anything?

 

I can't think of how that would work. You'd have to feel entirely impartial about looking at Nicole Kidman vs a rotting disembowelled hippopotamus corpse, for instance...

Yes. I feel like that's me. I have seen photos of Nicole Kidman and have definitely not felt any type of attraction to her at all; so, in your example, yes, I'd just think and feel like, "Okay. That's a person and a hippopotamus. And so what...?"

 

I've mainly only occasionally felt attraction to how confident and happy certain celebrities appear with themselves, I guess subconsciously wishing I could feel as happy and confident as they seem to be.

 

Sometimes, I've wondered whether it was due to growing up in a dysfunctional family and learning (along with being more concerned), with someone's personality and how they treat me or others, rather than their appearance. It's just never made any sense to me to be infatuated with or overly focused on how someone looks, when that doesn't automatically mean they're a kind, safe person to be around (i.e., they still could be abusive, once you get to know them).